ACIT, Panchkula V. The Haryana State Co-Operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd., Panchkula

ITA 1612/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2501 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 28-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHISH GUPTA
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Rule 8D
• Section: 14A; 201; 251

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH A , CHANDIGARH , ! '# $ % & '# , BEFORE: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1611/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 ./ ITA NO.1612/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 & ./ ITA NO.1613/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015-16 THE A.C.I.T, PANCHKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA. M/S HARYANA STATE CO-OP SUPPLY & MARKETING FEDERATION LTD., SECTOR 5, PANCHKULA. ./PAN NO: AAAJH0022R /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASHISH GUPTA, CIT(DR) / REVENUE BY : SHRI AMAN PARTI, ADV. ! ' /DATE OF HEARING : 23.05.2019 #$%& ' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:21.06.2019 /ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ALL THE ABOVE APPEALS RELATING TO THE SAME ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE. THE APPEAL IN I TA ITA NOS.1611 TO 1613/CHD/2018 A.YS.2012-13, 201 4-15 & 2015-16 2 NO.1611/CHD/2018 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PANCHKULA (IN SHORT CIT(A) DATED 22.10.2018 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR (A.Y) 2012-13 AND THE APPEALS IN ITA NOS.1612 & 1613/CHD/ 2018 ARE AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 23.10.2018 , PASSED U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT), RELATING TO A.Y. 2014-15 AND 2015-16 . SINCE COMMON ISSUE IS INVOLVED IN ALL THE APPEALS, THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF F BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. WE SHALL FIRST BE TAKING UP THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.1611/CHD/2018. ITA NO.1611/CHD/2018: 2. THE SOLE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE RELATES TO THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S80P(2)(E) OF T HE ACT, OF RENTAL INCOME EARNED BY IT FROM THE LETTI NG OUT WAREHOUSES OWNED BY IT AND THE SAME READS AS UNDER: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A)HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.8,69,01,552/ - U/S 80P(2)(E) WHICH IS NOT CORRECT BECAUSE THE SAM E IS NOT ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE A. Y. 2012-13. ITA NOS.1611 TO 1613/CHD/2018 A.YS.2012-13, 201 4-15 & 2015-16 3 3. AT THE OUTSET IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THIS WAS T HE SECOND ROUND BEFORE THE ITAT, WITH THE ITAT HAVING RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE CIT(A) IN THE FIRST ROUND TO DECIDE IT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO ITS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. 4. BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) DETAILED SUBMISSIONS WERE F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE CONTENDING THAT THE HON'BLE JURISDICTI ONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAD HELD T HAT THE RENTAL INCOME EARNED FROM LETTING OUT OF WAREHOUSES TO OUTSIDERS WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(E) OF THE ACT, WHILE THE WAREHOUSE INCOME RELATING TO STORAGE AND SALE OF THE FOODGRAINS BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF WAS NOT EN TITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(E) OF THE ACT ON THE COMPONENT OF STORAGE INCOME INCLUDED IN THE SALE PRICE. THE LD.C IT(A) FURTHER FOUND THAT THIS FACT HAD NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE FIRST ROUND ,WHO HAD DISALLOWED THE D EDUCTION FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED EVID ENCES TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM. THE LD.CIT(A) ALSO NOTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD INFACT FILED ALL EVIDENCES. THEREFORE AFTER CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE OF THE RENTAL INCOME EARNED BY IT, THE LD.CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE A SSESSEE ITA NOS.1611 TO 1613/CHD/2018 A.YS.2012-13, 201 4-15 & 2015-16 4 HAD RIGHTLY CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(E) OF THE ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AMOUNTING TO RS.8,69,01,552/-. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) AT PARA NOS.6 AN D 6.2 OF THE ORDER ARE AS UNDER: 6. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE APPELLANT' AND THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE IT AT, CHANDIGARH, IN ITA NO.48/CHD/2016 DA TED 30.10.2017. I FIND THAT THE HON'BLE ITAT WHILE ADJUDICATING ON THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCT ION U/S 80P(2)(E) AMOUNTING TO RS.8,69,01,5527- IN RESPECT OF THE RENT DERIVED BY THE APPELLANT FROM LETTING OUT THE GODOW NS FOR STORAGE, PROCESSING ETC. OF COMMODITIES HAS REMANDE D THE ISSUE BACK TO THIS OFFICE AND THE APPELLANT HAD FIL ED EVIDENCES OF HAVING RECEIVED RENTAL INCOME ON LETTING OUT OF THE GODOWNS DURING THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION. 6.1 IN THE VARIOUS DECISION OF HON'BLE TRIBUNAL AND JUDGMENTS OF HIGH COURTS CITED BY THE COUNSEL OF TH E APPELLANT, IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE BENEFIT OF DEDU CTION U/S 80P(2)(E) IS ALLOWABLE TO ASSESSEE ON THE RENTAL IN COME RECEIVED BY IT ON LETTING OUT OF GODOWNS AND WAREHO USES FOR THE STORAGE, PROCESSING, ETC. OF FOODGRAINS TO OTHE R CONCERNS WHILE THIS DEDUCTION IS NOT ALLOWABLE ON THE INCOME RECEIVED BY AN ASSESSEE ON STORAGE OF FOODGRAINS WHICH ARE O WNED BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. THIS FACT HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTE D BY THE LEARNED CIT APPEAL IN THE ORDER WHICH HAS BEEN REST ORED BACK TO THIS OFFICE FOR RECONSIDERATION. THE DISALL OWANCE MADE BY THE AO WAS UPHELD BY THE LEARNED CIT APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO FURNISH EVI DENCE TO SHOW THAT THE INCOME DERIVED OUT OF STORAGE OF AGRI CULTURAL COMMODITIES WAS RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED FROM OTHER C ONCERNS AND NOT THE INCOME OUT OF STORAGE OF AGRICULTURAL C OMMODITIES OWNED BY THE APPELLANT ITSELF. THE FACT OF THE APPE LLANT HAVING SUPPLIED THE EVIDENCE OF HAVING ON RENTAL IN COME WAS MENTIONED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ITSELF AS BELOW : '8.1 DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT DURING THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION RECEIVED INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF R ENTING OF ITS GODOWNS FOR THE PURPOSE OF STORAGE, PROCESSI NG AND ITA NOS.1611 TO 1613/CHD/2018 A.YS.2012-13, 201 4-15 & 2015-16 5 FACILITATING THE MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODIT IES. DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80P(2)(E) HAS BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE AO RELYING UPON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE APPELLANT'S OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 157, 159, 664 OF 2005, 477 OF 2006, 419 OF 2007 , 275 OF 2009 AND 246, 251 OF 2010. THE APPELLANT FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE INCO ME DERIVED BY THE APPELLANT BY WAY OF RENTING OF GODOWNS FOR T HE PURPOSE OF STORAGE, PROCESSING AND ACILITATING THE MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY H ELD TO BE ADMISSIBLE U/S 80P(2)(E). IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE APPELLANT HAD LET OUT SOME OF ITS GODOWNS WHERE FROM RENT WAS RECEIVED. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF LETTIN G OUT OF GODOWNS ON RENT HAD BEEN FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. DETAILS O F THE CALCULATIONS BASED ON WHICH THE DEDUCTION HAD BEEN CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT HAD ALSO BEEN FURNISHED BY THE APP ELLANT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. COPY OF SOME OF THE AGREEMENTS EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF RENTING OF GOD OWNS FOR THE PURPOSE OF STORAGE, PROCESSING AND FACILITATING THE MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES WAS ALSO SUBM ITTED. SO, THE ORDER OF THE AO IN DISALLOWING THE DEDUCTIO N CLAIMED U/S 80P(2)(E) IN RESPECT OF THE RENT DERIVED IS ERR ONEOUS AS BEING AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ALSO THE JU DGMENT OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT. ' 6.2 IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS DERIVED INCOME FROM STORAGE AS WELL A S RENT OF WAREHOUSES. THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HAR YANA HIGH COURT IN APPELLANT'S OWN CASE AND SUBSEQUENTLY FOLLOWED BY HON'BLE ITAT, CHANDIGARH BENCH HAS CLEA RLY ESTABLISHED THAT THE WAREHOUSING INCOME RELATED TO STORAGE AND THEREAFTER SALE IS NOT THE SAME AS RENTAL INCOM E. THE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH STORAGE HAS NOT BEEN ALLO WED/ HOWEVER, WITH RESPECT TO THE GODOWNS WHICH WERE HIR ED OUT TO THE OUTSIDERS AND NOT BEING USED BY THE APPELLAN T FOR ITS OWN BUSINESS, THE RENTAL INCOME FROM SUCH HIRING IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(E)| THE APPELLANT HAS FILE D DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF COPY OF LEASE D EEDS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION OF HAVING ACTUALLY LET OU T ITS GODOWNS ON RENT TO FCI, IFFCO, NAFED, CENTRAL WAREH OUSING CORPORATION, ETC. THE SAME HAD BEEN FURNISHED DURI NG THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS APP ELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE WORTHY CIT(A), BUT SEEM TO H AVE BEEN OVERLOOKED. THE COPY OF THESE LEASE DEEDS CLEARLY ITA NOS.1611 TO 1613/CHD/2018 A.YS.2012-13, 201 4-15 & 2015-16 6 ESTABLISHES THE FACT OF THE APPELLANT HAVING LEASED OUT ITS GODOWNS TO FCI ETC. WHEREFROM IT WAS DERIVING RENTA L INCOME. FURTHER, THE FACT THAT APPELLANT'S GODOWNS HAD ACTUALLY BEEN RENTED OUT TO VARIOUS PARTIES ALSO ST AND CORROBORATED FROM FORM 26AS FILED BY THE APPELLANT WHICH CLEARLY REFLECTS THAT TAX HAD BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOUR CE IN RESPECT OF THE RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT..DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN TOTAL WAREHOUSING TURNOVER OF RS.81.56 CRORES WHICH INCLUDES INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF STORAGE AS WELL AS RENTAL INCOME. OUT OF THIS AMOUNT RS.34. 97 CRORES WAS RECEIVED AS RENTAL INCOME FROM IFFCO, NAFED, CE NTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, ETC. THE APPELLANT HAS EXC LUDED PROPORTIONATE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO T HIS RENTAL INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, THE PROFIT ON RENTAL INCOME AF TER EXCLUDING THE PROPORTIONATE EXPENDITURE OF RS.26.28 CRORES HA S BEEN COMPUTED AND CLAIMED FOR WORKING OUT ELIGIBLE DEDUC TION. ON PERUSAL OF DETAILS OF SUCH CALCULATION WHERE THE DE DUCTION HAS BEEN CLAIMED ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF RENTAL INCOME EXCLU DING THE INCOME RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF STORAGE CHARGES, I FI ND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS RIGHTLY CLAIMED THE ELIGIBLE DEDU CTION OF RS.8,69,01,552/- U/S 80P(2)(E). ON SIMILAR FACTS , IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE FOR THE A.Y.2013-14 THE CIT(APPEAL S) HAD ALLOWED DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80P(2)(E) VIDE HIS OR DER DATED 30.09.2016 WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE TRI BUNAL/IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, I H OLD THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF RENTAL INCOME AND THE SAME IS ORDERED TO BE DELETED. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE REVENUE HAS COME UP I N APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. AT THE OUTSET ITSELF LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ITAT HAD HELD DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(E) ALLOWABLE ON THE RENTAL INCOME EARNED FROM OUTSIDERS ,IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR I .E . A.Y. 2013-14 AND A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY TH E ITA NOS.1611 TO 1613/CHD/2018 A.YS.2012-13, 201 4-15 & 2015-16 7 REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT HAD AL SO BEEN DISMISSED HOLDING NO ERROR /MISTAKE IN THE SAME. CO PY OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN ITA NO.1269& 1223/CHD/16 D ATED 22-01-18, AND M.A NO.158 & 159/CHD/18 DATED 08-03- 19, BOTH RELATING TO A.Y 2013-14, WERE FILED BEFORE US. 7. BEFORE US, THE LD. DR THOUGH RELIED UPON THE ORD ER OF THE A.O. , WAS FAIR ENOUGH TO CONCEDE THAT THE ISSU E WAS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE DE CISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE ITSELF AND THE DECISION OF THE I.T.A.T. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSEQUENT YEAR. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE FIND NO REASON TO INTER FERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) ALLOWING THE ASSESSES CL AIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(E) AMOUNTING TO RS.8,69,01,552 /-.THE LD.CIT(A) ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM U/S 80P(2)(E ) OF THE ACT NOTING THAT THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ITSELF HAD HELD THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT WAS ALLOWABLE ON RENTAL INCOME EARNED FROM OUTSIDERS. IT WAS ON APPRECIATING THIS LEGAL P ROPOSITION THAT THE I.T.A.T. IN THE FIRST ROUND HAS RESTORED T HE MATTER BACK TO THE LD.CIT(A) TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE OF AL LOWANCE OF CLAIM U/S 80P(2)(E) OF THE ACT AFTER VERIFYING THE EVIDENCES ITA NOS.1611 TO 1613/CHD/2018 A.YS.2012-13, 201 4-15 & 2015-16 8 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE LD .CIT(A) HAS GONE THROUGH ALL THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE AND FOUND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE LD. DR HAS BEEN UNABLE TO CONTROVERT THIS FACTUAL FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE F IND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. ITA NO.1612/CHD/2018: 9. GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE READS AS UNDER: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A)HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.8,33,69,176/ - U/S 80P(2)(E) WHICH IS NOT CORRECT BECAUSE THE SAM E IS NOT ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE A. Y. 2014-15. IT WAS COMMON GROUND BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT THE GROUND NO.1 RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS SIMILAR TO GROUND NO.1 RAISED IN ITA NO.1611/CHD/2018.OUR DECISION RENDERED THEREIN AT PARA 8 WILL APPLY MUTA TIS MUTANDIS TO THIS GROUND ALSO. FOLLOWING THE SAME WE DISMISS THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 10. GROUND NOS.2 AND 3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE RELATE TO THE SAME ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPEN SES ITA NOS.1611 TO 1613/CHD/2018 A.YS.2012-13, 201 4-15 & 2015-16 9 AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO THE DIVIDEND AND INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT AND THE SAME READ AS UNDER: 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN HOLDING TH AT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST AS PER RUL E 8D(2)(II) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 BE DELETED? 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN HOLDING TH AT THE EXPENDITURE TO BE DISALLOWED AS PER RULE 8D(2)(II) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 IS TO BE CALCULATED BY TAKIN G INTO CONSIDERATION ONLY THOSE INVESTMENT WHICH HAVE EARNED INCOME DURING THE YEAR IN COMPLETED DISREGARD TO CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 5/2014 DATED 11.02.2 014, WHICH CLARIFIES THAT RULE 8D READ WITH SECTION 14A OF THE ACT PROVIDES FOR DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENDITURE EV EN WHERE TAX PAYER IN A PARTICULAR YEAR HAS NOT EARNED ANY EXEMPT INCOME? 11. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT DURI NG THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A.O. NOTED THAT THE DEDUCTIONS U/S 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.8,12,65,860/- ON DIVIDEND INCOME AND RS.20,44,17 8/- ON INTEREST INCOME WERE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE A .O. OBSERVED THAT DIVIDEND WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SHARES HELD WITH IFFCO, INDIAN POTASH LTD., KRIBHCO , CWC WHICH WERE THE NATIONAL APEX COOP. SOCIETIES AND TH E ASSESSEE WAS A SHARE HOLDER IN SUCH SOCIETIES. THE FUNDS PLACED IN THE ABOVE INVESTMENTS WERE OUT OF THE BUS INESS ITA NOS.1611 TO 1613/CHD/2018 A.YS.2012-13, 201 4-15 & 2015-16 10 FIRMS OF THE ASSESSEE. THESE INVESTMENTS WERE PART AND PARCEL OF CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE. OUT OF THE SAME COMMON FUNDS, INCLUDING INTEREST BE ARING FUNDS, PURCHASES WERE MADE, EXPENSES WERE MET AND T HE INVESTMENTS IN SHARES WERE MADE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIM ED 100% DEDUCTION WITHOUT REDUCTION OF ANY PROPORTIONA TE EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE'S PLEA THAT NO COST WAS I NCURRED ON THESE INVESTMENTS WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO WH O ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE CLAIM RS.8,33,10,038/- U/S 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT BY REDUCING THEREFROM EXPENSE S INCURRED FOR EARNING THE SAME CALCULATED BY APPLYIN G THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. 12. THE LD.CIT(A) HELD THAT THE A.O. HAD RIGHTLY AP PLIED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT FOR THE PURPOS E OF DETERMINING THE EXPENSES WHICH ARE TO BE REDUCED FR OM THE INTEREST AND DIVIDEND INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT, BUT THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER HELD THAT SINCE THE INTEREST EXPENSES AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES WERE TO BE COMPUTED IN ACCO RDANCE WITH RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 AND CONS IDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT OWN INTER EST FREE FUNDS, NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST U/S 14A WAS TO B E MADE ITA NOS.1611 TO 1613/CHD/2018 A.YS.2012-13, 201 4-15 & 2015-16 11 AS PER RULE 8D OF THE RULES. AS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISALLOWANCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES, THE LD.CIT (A) HELD THAT THE SAME WAS TO BE CALCULATED BY APPLYING THE FORMULA PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III) OF THE RULES ON ON LY THOSE INVESTMENTS WHICH HAD EARNED INTEREST AND DIVIDEND INCOME. THE LD.CIT(A) RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE I.T.A .T. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 20 12-13 AND 2013-14 IN THIS REGARD. RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE LD .CIT(A) AT PARA 6 TO 6.4 OF THE ORDER ARE AS UNDER: 6. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS O BSERVED THAT THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS WHETHER DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A R.W.R. 8D IS CALLED FOR IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80(P )(2)(D) OF THE ACT, AND IF SO HOW THE SAID DISALLOWANCE IS TO BE WORKED OUT AS PER PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. I FIND THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT ARE A TTRACTED IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT AS IT FALLS ON ALL FOURS ON T HE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HA RYANA IN THE CASE OF PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUC ERS FEDERATION LTD. VS. CIT [2016] 67 TAXMANN.COM 27 WH ERE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A ARE APPLICABLE EVEN TO INCOME CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT. MOREOVER, THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 14A R.W.R. 8D HAS BEEN UPHELD IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BY T HE TRIBUNAL IN THE PRECEDING YEARS. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.48/CHD/2 016 FOR THE A.Y.2012-13 AS BELOW: '9. ON THE FIRST CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT SECTION 14A R.W.R. 8D IS NOT APPLICABLE WHILE WORKING OUT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(D), W E FIND THAT THE LD. DR HAS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT THAT T HE ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE HONOURABLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PUNJAB STA TE ITA NOS.1611 TO 1613/CHD/2018 A.YS.2012-13, 201 4-15 & 2015-16 12 COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION LTD. VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. REPORTED IN 336 I TR 495 WHEREIN THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SAID SECTION H AS BEEN UPHELD. 10. MOREOVER, AS EMERGED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE APPLICABILITY OF RULE 8D R.W .S. 14A HAS BEEN UPHELD IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL AND ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN PRECEDING YEARS. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTIO N OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SECTION 14A R.W.R. 8D IS NOT TO B E APPLIED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING THE DEDUCTIO N ALLOWABLE U/S 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT.' SINCE THE FACTS REMAIN THE SAME, I AM OF THE VIEW T HAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS IN RECEIPT OF INCOME WHICH IS NOT C HARGEABLE TO TAX, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO EAR NING OF THE SAID INCOME HAS TO BE DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 14A R.W.R. 8D. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT SECTION 14A IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE APPELLANT IS WITHOUT MERIT . 6.1 SINCE THE ISSUE OF APPLICABILITY OF DISALLOWAN CE U/S!4A R.W.R. 8D HAS BEEN THE ASSESSEE, THE ISSUE W HICH REMAINS IS TO DECIDE THE QUANTUM OF THE DISALLOWANC E TO BE MADE. I FIND THAT THE COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT HAS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT THAT THE AO HAS MADE THE DISALLOWANCE O N CERTAIN ASSUMPTIONS AND NOT FOLLOWED THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D WHILE CALCULATING THE APPLICABLE DISALLOWANCE IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. IT HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE HONOURABL E ITAT IN THE APPELLANT'S OWN CASES FOR THE PRECEDING YEARS T HAT THAT DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A HAS TO BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D. THERE FORE, I HOLD THAT THE QUANTUM OF DISALLOWANCE HAS TO BE REWORKED BY T HE AO. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RULE 8D C ONSISTS OF TWO KINDS OF EXPENDITURE THAT HAS BEEN INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT IN RELATION TO EARNING OF THE EXEMPT INCO ME. SECTION 8D(2)(II) RELATES TO THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE INCUR RED BY THE APPELLANT ON THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF USE OF MIXED FUNDS OF THE APPELLANT, SOME OF WHICH BEAR IN TEREST. I FIND THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.48/CHD/2016 FOR THE A.Y.2012-13 IN THE ASSE SSEE'S OWN CASE AS BELOW: '11. AS FAR THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL F OR ASSESSEE THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT IT HAD ENOUG H SURPLUS FUNDS WHICH ARE INTEREST-FREE AND WHICH IS ITA NOS.1611 TO 1613/CHD/2018 A.YS.2012-13, 201 4-15 & 2015-16 13 DEMONSTRATED FROM THE QUANTUM OF SHARE CAPITAL AND RESERVES AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE OVER THE YEARS AS REFLECTED IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSE E, THE PRESUMPTION OUGHT TO BE THAT THE INVESTMENTS HAD BE EN MADE OUT OF THESE INTEREST-FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE/THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENOUGH OWN FUNDS TO MAKE THE IMPUGNED INVESTMENT HAD NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY TH E LEARNED DR AND THE SAME STANDS REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE RIGHT FROM FINANCIAL YEAR ENDING 31.03.91 TO THE IMPUGNED FINANCIAL YEAR ENDI NG ON 31.03.12, WHICH HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE US IN THE FO RM OF PAPER BOOK. MOREOVER, THE HONOURABLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS HELD IN THE CASE OF CIT VS M/S MAX INDIA LTD. IN ITA NO.210/CHD/2013 DATED 08.03.2017 THAT IF AN ASSESSEE ESTABLISHES THAT ITS INTEREST-FREE FUNDS W ERE EQUAL TO OR MORE THAN THE INTEREST-BEARING FUNDS IT WOULD BE OPEN TO IT TO CONTEND THAT PRESUMPTION ARISES THAT THE EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING INTEREST INCOME WAS INCURRE D FROM OUT OF ITS INTEREST-FREE FUNDS WARRANTING NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE U/S 14A R.W.R. 8D. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT ARE AS UNDER: '9. THIS PRESUMPTION IS UNFOUNDED. MERELY BECAUSE T HE INTEREST-FREE FUNDS WITH THE ASSESSEE HAVE DECREASE D DURING ANY PERIOD, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE FUND S BORROWED ON INTEREST WERE UTILISED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTING IN ASSETS YIELDING EXEMPT INCOME. IF EVE N AFTER THE DECREASE THE SSESSEE HAS INTEREST-FREE FU NDS SUFFICIENT TO MAKE THE INVESTMENT IN ASSETS YIE LDING THE EXEMPT INCOME, THE PRESUMPTION THAT IT WAS S UCH FUNDS THAT WERE UTILISED FOR THE SAID INVESTMENT RE MAINS. THERE IS NO REASON FOR IT NOT TO. THE BASIS OF THE PRESUMPTION AS WE WILL ELABORATE LATER IS THAT AN ASSESSEE WOULD INVEST ITS FUNDS TO ITS ADVANTAGE. I T GAINS NOTHING BY 'INVESTING INTEREST-FREE FUNDS TOW ARDS OTHER ASSETS MERELY ON ACCOUNT OF THE INTEREST-FREE FUNDS HAVING DECREASED. IN THAT EVENT SO LONG AS EVEN AFT ER THE DECREASE THEREOF THERE ARE SUFFICIENT INTEREST- FREE FUNDS THE PRESUMPTION THAT THEY WOULD BE FIRST USED TO INVEST IN ASSETS YIELDING EXEMPT INCOME APPLIES WIT H EQUAL FORCE. ' ITA NOS.1611 TO 1613/CHD/2018 A.YS.2012-13, 201 4-15 & 2015-16 14 12. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE HOLD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENDITUR E AS PER RULE 8D(2)(II) OF THE RULES BE DELETED.' 6.2 THE ABOVE REASONING WAS ALSO FOLLOWED BY THE HONOURABLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT FO R THE A.Y. 2013-14 IN ITA NO.L269&1223/CHD/2016 DATED 22.01.2018. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, IT IS HELD THAT DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) IS RIOT WARRANTED AS THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT OWN INTEREST-FREE FUNDS FOR MAKING THE INVESTMENTS WHICH HAVE EARNED INCOME NOT CHARGE ABLE TO TAX. THIS FACT IS EVIDENCED BY THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2013. FILED BY THE APPELLANT WHEREIN RESERVES AND SURPLUS OF RS.7,64,46,89,346/- ARE AVAILABLE WITH T HE APPELLANT WHEREAS INVESTMENT STAND AT RS. 1,37,55,7 8,246/-. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WHILE WORKING OUT THE DISALLO WANCE U/S 14A R.W.R. 8D, THE AO SHALL NOT MAKE ANY DISALLOWAN CE AS PER SECTION 8D(2)(II). 6.3 THE SECOND LEG OF RULE 8D I.E. 8D(2)(III) RELAT ES TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT O N THE MANAGEMENT OF INVESTMENT. I FIND THAT THIS ISSUE HA S BEEN DECIDED BY THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.48/CHD /2016 FOR THE A.Y.2012-13 IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE AS B ELOW: '13. AS FAR AS THE CONTENTION OF LEARNED COUNSEL FO R ASSESSEE THAT THE CALCULATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES TO BE DISALLOWED AS PER RULE 8D(2)(III) BE RESTRICTED TO INVESTMENTS WHICH HAVE EARNED INCOME DURING THE YEAR, WE FIND MERIT IN THIS CONTENTION O F LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE. THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OFACIT VS. VIREET INVESTMENTS PRIV ATE LIMITED IN ITA NO.502/DEL/2012 DATED 16.06.2017 HAS LAID DOWN THE SAID PROPOSITION AND EVEN THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OFACB INDIA LT D. VS ACIT IN ITA NO.615/2014 DATED 24.03.2015 HAS HELD SO HOLDING AS UNDER: '4. THE AO, INSTEAD OF ADOPTING THE AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT OF WHICH INCOME IS NOT PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME I. E. THE VALUE OF TAX-EXEMPT INVESTMENT, CHOSE TO FACTOR IN THE TOTAL INVESTMENT ITSELF. EVEN THOUGH THE CIT(APPEALS) NOTICED THE EXACT VALUE OF THE INVESTMENT WHICH YIELDED TAXABLE INCOME, HE DID NOT CORRECT THE ERROR BUT CHOSE TO. APPLY HIS OWN EQUITY. GIVEN (HE RECORD ITA NOS.1611 TO 1613/CHD/2018 A.YS.2012-13, 201 4-15 & 2015-16 15 THAI HAD TO BE DONE SO TO SUBSTITUTE THE FIGURE OF 38,61,09,2877- WITH THE FIGURE OF 3,53,26,800/- AND THEREAFTER ARRIVE AT THE EXACT DISALLOWANCE OF 0.5%.' 14. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DIRECT THAT THE EXPENSES TO BE DISALLOWED UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III) BE CALCULATED BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ONLY THOSE INVESTMENTS WHICH HAVE EARNED INCOME DURING THE YEAR. 15.. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE HOLD THAT SECTION 14A R.W.R. 8D IS APPLICABLE FOR WORKING OUT THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80P(2)(D) BY THE ASSESSES AND THAT NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE IS ALLOWABLE AS PER RULE 8D(2)(II) WHILE THE EXPENDITURE TO BE DISALLOWED AS PER RULE 8D(2)(III) IS TO BE CALCULATED BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ONLY THOSE INVESTMENTS WHICH HAVE EARNED INCOME DURING THE YEAR. 6.4 THE ABOVE REASONING WAS ALSO FOLLOWED BY THE HONOURABLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE A.Y. 2013-14 IN ITA NO NO.L269&1223/CHD/2016 DATED 22.01.2018. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, IT IS HELD THAT DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III) IS TO BE CALCULA TED BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ONLY THOSE INVESTMENTS WHICH HA VE EARNED INCOME DURING THE YEAR. 13. BEFORE US THE LD. DR THOUGH HEAVILY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE A.O., FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT BOTH THE IS SUES WERE COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF T HE I.T.A.T. IN THE PRECEDING YEARS. 14. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSSESSEE HEAVILY SUPPOR TED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ITA NOS.1611 TO 1613/CHD/2018 A.YS.2012-13, 201 4-15 & 2015-16 16 15. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVING GONE T HROUGH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERF ERE IN THE SAME. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE CALCULATED AS PER RULE 8D(2)(II) OF THE RULES BY FOLLOWING THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN BY THE I.T.A.T. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 2-13 THAT WHERE SUFFICIENT OWN INTEREST FREE FUNDS ARE AVAILA BLE, NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IS WARRANTED. THE LD.CIT(A ) HAS GIVEN A FACTUAL FINDING THAT SUFFICIENT INTEREST FR EE FUNDS WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR WAS UN ABLE TO DISTINGUISH THE DECISION OF THE I.T.A.T. RELIED UPO N BY THE LD.CIT(A) AND WAS ALSO UNABLE TO CONTROVERT THE FAC TUAL FINDING OF THE CIT(A) VIS--VIS THE DELETION OF INT EREST EXPENSES AS PER RULE 8D(2)(II) OF THE RULES. AS FAR THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD.CIT(A) TO CALCULATE THE DISALL OWANCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES AS PER RULE 8D(2)(III) OF T HE RULES BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ONLY THOSE INVESTMENTS WHICH HAD EARNED INTEREST AND DIVIDEND INCOME, WE FIND TH AT THE LD.CIT(A) HAD RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE I.T.A .T. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 3-14 ON IDENTICAL ISSUE. THE LD. DR WAS UNABLE TO DISTINGUI SH THE SAME. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASO N TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD ALSO. THE ITA NOS.1611 TO 1613/CHD/2018 A.YS.2012-13, 201 4-15 & 2015-16 17 GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS.2 AND 3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. IN EFFECT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.1613/CHD/2018: 16. GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE READS AS UNDER: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A)HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.663,26,502/- U/S 80P(2)(E) WHICH IS NOT CORRECT BECAUSE THE SAM E IS NOT ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE A. Y. 2015-16. 17. IT WAS COMMON GROUND BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT THE GROUND NO.1 RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS SIMILAR TO GROUND NO.1 RAISED IN ITA NO.1611/CHD/2018.OUR DECISION RENDERED THEREIN AT PARA 8 WILL APPLY MUTA TIS MUTANDIS TO THIS GROUND ALSO FOLLOWING WHICH WE DISMISS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 18. GROUND NOS.2 AND 3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE READ A S UNDER: 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN HOLDING TH AT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST AS PER RUL E 8D(2)(II) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 BE DELETED? ITA NOS.1611 TO 1613/CHD/2018 A.YS.2012-13, 201 4-15 & 2015-16 18 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN HOLDING TH AT THE EXPENDITURE TO BE DISALLOWED AS PER RULE 8D(2)(II) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 IS TO BE CALCULATED BY TAKIN G INTO CONSIDERATION ONLY THOSE INVESTMENT WHICH HAVE EARNED INCOME DURING THE YEAR IN COMPLETED DISREGARD TO CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 5/2014 DATED 11.02.2 014, WHICH CLARIFIES THAT RULE 8D READ WITH SECTION 14A OF THE ACT PROVIDES FOR DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENDITURE EV EN WHERE TAX PAYER IN A PARTICULAR YEAR HAS NOT EARNED ANY EXEMPT INCOME? 19. IT WAS COMMON GROUND BETWEEN BOTH THE PARTIES THAT THE GROUND NOS.2 AND 3 RAISED IN THIS APPEAL W ERE SIMILAR TO GROUND NOS.2 AND 3 RAISED IN ITA NO.1612/CHD/2018.OUR DECISION RENDERED THEREIN AT PARA 15 WILL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO THIS GROUN D ALSO FOLLOWING WHICH WE DISMISS BOTH THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE. IN EFFECT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 20. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REV ENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- $ % & '# (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER () /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER +$ /DATED: 21 ST JUNE, 2019 * # * ITA NOS.1611 TO 1613/CHD/2018 A.YS.2012-13, 201 4-15 & 2015-16 19 $'( )*+* / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. , / THE APPELLANT 2. (-, / THE RESPONDENT 3. . / CIT 4. . ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. */0( 1 , '1 , 23405 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 046! / GUARD FILE $' / BY ORDER, / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR